9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he valuation report of assets prepared by Dalai Mott Macdonald which was found in survey which indicated that software developed and installed by the assessee in the system. The assessee produced all the vouchers and receipt for the same which was also examined by learned CIT(A) - Unless perversity is pointed out, no question of law arises for this Court to interfere as both have dealt with the issues elaborately giving sound and cogent reasons - Decided against Revenue. Deduction u/s. 80HHC and 80IA - CIT allowed deduction - Held that:- Such deduction would be available only there was positive income. The Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment, made certain additions and thereby converted the return of the assessee of one of lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee u/s 80HHC and 80-IA of the Act when the assessee had not made any such claim in the return of income?" 2. Counsel for the Revenue candidly stated that question No.1 gets covered by our order dated 16.4.2013 passed in Tax Appeal No. 507 of 2012 in case of this very assessee. We notice that we had not entertained a similar question in the said order making following observations: "Regarding question No.1, Tribunal followed its own order in case of very assessee for the assessment year 2002-2003 to hold in favour of the assessee. For the assessment year 2002-2003 while confirming the order of CIT (Appeals), the Tribunal made the following observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. Unless perversity is pointed out, no question of law arises for this Court to interfere as both have dealt with the issues elaborately giving sound and cogent reasons. The issue therefore, merits no further consideration." Question no.1 accordingly, merits no consideration. 3. Insofar as question No. 2 is concerned brief facts are thus: 3.1 Respondent-assessee had filed a return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 disclosing loss. Assessing Officer, however, in a scrutiny assessment made certain additions, pursuant to which, the income assessed was on the positive side. Assessee took the matter in appeal before the Commissioner. In addition to questioning such additions, the assessee raised an alternative contention tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. 9. On consideration of the above facts, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. Since the assessee filed return of income at losses, therefore, there was no reason for the assessee to make a claim of deduction under these provisions when income is computed at profit. The learned CIT(A), therefore, rightly directed the AO to consider this issue particularly when the assessee fulfilled conditions under these provisions. The learned CIT(A) merely directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee as per law. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
